Social workers and probation officers are frequently called upon to make judgements about the likelihood of re-offending. However, whilst the use of risk assessment instruments is now commonplace, the cognitive processes through which these judgements are made are rarely explicit.
• Findings
This study used the repertory grid method to elicit the constructs of judgements about re-offending of 15 experienced probation officers. Primary factors in their judgements were related to: (1) responsibility and risk taking behaviour; (2) criminal history; (3) self-awareness; and (4) stability. Personality characteristics, substance misuse and family dysfunction were also important. The findings are discussed in relation to two theoretical frameworks for understanding decision making: heuristics and biases and image theory, which focuses on values.
• Application
It is suggested that the design and implementation of assessment tools should be undertaken in the light of the constructs used in making professional judgements which inform the relevant decision making.
ÆgisdóttirS.WhiteM. J.SpenglerP. M.MaughermanA. S.AndersonL. A.CookR. S., … RushJ. D. (2006).
The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling Psychologist,
34(3), 341–382. doi: 10.1177/0011000005285875
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (1995). The level of service inventory – Revised.
Toronto:
Multi-Health Systems.
3.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithJ. S. (2006).
The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency,
52(1), 7–27. doi: 10.1177/0011128705281756
4.
AndrewsD. A.DowdenC. (2006).
Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
50(1), 88–100. doi: 10.1177/0306624X05282556
5.
BeachL. R.ConnollyT. (2005). The psychology of decision making (2nd ed.).
California:
SAGE.
6.
BeailN. (Ed.). (1985). Repertory grid technique and personal constructs: Applications in clinical and educational settings.
London, UK:
Croom Helm.
7.
BontaJ. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In: HarlandA. T. (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
ByrneJ.RobinsonR. (1990). Juvenile risk classification in Illinois: An examination of inter-rater reliability.
Springfield, IL:
Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts.
10.
Council of Europe. (2010). Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 1 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the Council of Europe Probation Rules (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 January 2010). Retrieved from https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1563957
11.
FransellaF.BannisterD. (1977). A manual for repertory grid technique (2nd ed.).
London, UK:
Academic Press.
12.
FransellaF.BellR.BannisterD. (2004). A manual for repertory grid technique (2nd ed.).
Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
13.
GardnerF. (2014). Being critically reflective.
Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
14.
GigerenzerG. (2014). Risk savvy: How to make good decisions.
London, UK:
Penguin.
15.
GigerenzerG.GoldsteinD. G. (1996).
Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review,
103(4), 650–669. doi: 0033-295X/96/$3.00
16.
GilesM.MullineuxJ. (2000).
Assessment and decision-making: Probation officers’ construing of factors relevant to risk.Legal and Criminological Psychology,
5, 165–185. doi: 10.1348/135532500168074
17.
GladwellM. (2006). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking.
London, UK:
Penguin.
18.
GottredsonS. D.MorriartyL. J. (2006).
Clinical versus actuarial judgments in criminal justice decisions: Should one replace the other?Federal Probation,
70(2), 15–18.
19.
Hanson, R. K., & Howard, P. D. (2010) Individual confidence intervals do not inform decision-makers about theaccuracy of risk assessment evaluations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 275–281.
20.
HansonR. K.Morton-BourgonK. E. (2009).
The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies.Psychological Assessment,
21(1), 1–21. doi: 10.1037/a0014421
Home Office. (2002). Offender assessment system: OASys – User manual.
London, UK:
Home Office.
23.
HoustonS. (2015). Reflective practice: A model for supervision and practice in social work.
Belfast, UK:
NISCC.
24.
HuntD. E. (1951). Studies in role concept repertory: Conceptual consistency (Unpublished master's Thesis) Ohio State University, USA.
25.
JankowiczD. (2004). The easy guide to repertory grids.
Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
26.
JonesN.BrownS. L.ZambleE. Z. (2010).
Predicting criminal recidivism in adult male offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
37(8), 860–882. doi: 10.1177/0093854810368924
KellyG. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs.
New York:
Norton.
29.
KellyG. (1963). A theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs.
London, UK:
Norton.
30.
KnottC., & Scragg, T. (2010). Reflective Practice in Social Work (2nd ed.). Exeter: Learning Matters.
31.
LancasterE.LumbJ. (2006).
The assessment of risk in the national probation service of England and Wales. Journal of Social Work,
6(3), 275–291. doi: 10.1177/1468017306071176
32.
MatraversA.HughesG. (2003). Unprincipled sentencing? The policy approach to dangerous sex offenders. In TonryM. (Ed.), Confronting crime: Crime control under new labour.
Cullompton:
Willan.
33.
NeimeyerR. A. (1985). The development of personal construct psychology.
USA:
University of Nebraska.
34.
RobertsC.BurnettR.KirbyA.HamillH. (1996). A system for evaluating probation practice (Probation Studies Unit Report 1).
Oxford, UK:
Centre for Criminological Research.
35.
RossL. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 10.
New York:
Academic Press.
36.
RuchG. (2002).
From triangle to spiral: Reflective practice in social work education, practice and research.Social Work Education,
21(2), 199–216. doi: 10.1080/02615470220126435
37.
SchwalbeC. S. (2007).
Risk assessment for juvenile justice: A meta-analyses.Law and Human Behavior,
31, 449–462. doi: 10.1177/0093854808324377
38.
TaylorB. J. (2006).
Factorial surveys: Using vignettes to study professional judgement.British Journal of Social Work,
36(7), 1187–1207. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bch345
39.
TaylorB. J. (2016).
Heuristics in professional judgement: A psycho-social rationality model. British Journal of Social Work,
47, 1043–1060. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcw084
40.
TaylorB. J. (2017). Decision making, assessment and risk in social work (3rd ed.).
London, UK:
Sage.
41.
TaylorB. J.CampbellB. (2011).
Quality, risk and governance: Social Workers’ perspectives.International Journal of Leadership in Public Services,
7(4), 256–272. doi: 10.1108/17479881111194152
42.
TaylorB. J.KillickC. J. (2013).
Threshold decisions in child protection: Systematic narrative review of theoretical models used in empirical studies (conference abstract).Medical Decision Making,
33(2), E145–E203. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12455402
WebsterC.DouglasK.EavesM. D.HartS. (1997). HCR-20 Assessing risk for violence (version 2).
Vancouver:
Simon Fraser University.
45.
WhiteheadP.ThompsonJ. (2004). Knowledge and the probation service.
Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
46.
WinterD. A. (1992). Personal construct psychology in clinical practice: Theory, research and applications.
London, UK:
Routledge.
47.
YorkeM. (1989).
The intolerable wrestle: Words, numbers and meanings.International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology,
2(1), 65–76. doi: 10.1080/08936038908404739
